Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
In Re the Marriage of Catherine Parr, f.k.a. Catherine Lyman and David Lyman

In Re the Marriage of Catherine Parr, f.k.a. Catherine Lyman and David Lyman

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,058|Likes:
Published by Circuit Media

More info:

Published by: Circuit Media on May 27, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS ______________________________________________________________________________ Court of Appeals No. 09CA0854El Paso County District Court No. 06DR1888Honorable Rebecca S. Bromley, Judge ______________________________________________________________________________ In re the Marriage of Catherine Parr, f/k/a Catherine Lyman,Appellee,andDavid Lyman,Appellant. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART Division IOpinion by JUDGE TAUBMANHawthorne, J., concursFurman, J., specially concursAnnounced May 27, 2010 ______________________________________________________________________________ Catherine Parr, Pro SeRobert J. Corry, Jr., Denver, Colorado, for Appellant
In this post-dissolution of marriage proceeding, David Lyman(father) appeals the trial court order restricting parenting time withhis minor child. We affirm in part and vacate in part. The marriage between father and Catherine Lyman, nowknown as Catherine Parr (mother), was dissolved in 2007. At thattime, the parties signed a complete parenting plan that detailed agradual increase in father’s parenting time over a period of sevenmonths, from short, supervised visits to unsupervised, alternating weekend overnights with the child. The parenting plan alsoprovided that father’s visits with the child “should be governed bythe following guidelines: . . . (iv) Ongoing UA’s [urinalysis tests] anddrug screenings to demonstrate that he does not return tomarijuana use.”Approximately one week after signing the parenting plan, andthe same day that the court incorporated the parenting plan intothe decree, father learned he had been approved for listing on theState of Colorado Medical Marijuana Registry (Registry), apparentlybecause of his debilitating back and knee pain resulting from amotorcycle accident. He thereafter filed a pro se motion with the
magistrate requesting that the portion of the parenting planregarding urinalysis testing be waived.At the hearing on his motion, father testified that at the timehe signed the parenting plan, he kept the existence of his Registrypetition secret from mother on his counsel’s advice not to raise theissue until he was certain he would be approved.Following the hearing, the magistrate concluded that becausefather voluntarily and knowingly signed the parenting plan, heinvited a valid court order requiring urinalysis testing and was,therefore, “stuck with it.” The magistrate also found that althoughfather may have acted on the advice of counsel, he neverthelessacted in bad faith by signing the parenting plan knowing that hehad begun a separate legal process to apply for the medical use of marijuana. Thus, the magistrate denied father’s motion to waivethe required urinalysis testing, and, instead, ordered that fathercontinue with such testing until further court order.Father then filed a timely petition for review of the magistrate’sorder, arguing, inter alia, that he did not act in bad faith by keepinghis petition a secret, and that the requirement for urinalysis testing

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Jim McDonough liked this
RochesterCares liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->